The spec file is very clean so the review is easy. :-)
First my suggestions and then the full report:
Suggestions:
1) It would be nice to have a larger (less cryptic) description.
2) BuildRoot is no longer required in the spec files.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
3) It is considered good style to have one BuildRequires for each package. The advantage of this approach is that if one of them changes it is easier to read using diff (or patch or...).
These are my suggestions and are free to included them after importing the package.
Well done. :-) The package is APPROVED.
Package Review
==============
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
[x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture.
[x] : MUST - Each %files section contains %defattr
[x] : MUST - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x] : MUST - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work.
[x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
[-] : MUST - %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-] : MUST - Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application.
[-] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] : MUST - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[-] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-] : MUST - The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] : MUST - No %config files under /usr.
[-] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] : MUST - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint octave-miscellaneous-1.0.11-1.fc16.src.rpm
================================================================================
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
================================================================================
rpmlint octave-miscellaneous-debuginfo-1.0.11-1.fc16.i686.rpm
================================================================================
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
================================================================================
rpmlint octave-miscellaneous-1.0.11-1.fc16.i686.rpm
================================================================================
octave-miscellaneous.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge
octave-miscellaneous.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/octave/packages/miscellaneous-1.0.11/packinfo/.autoload
octave-miscellaneous.i686: E: zero-length /usr/share/octave/packages/miscellaneous-1.0.11/packinfo/.autoload
octave-miscellaneous.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
================================================================================
Known issues, not related with this package. So this is OK.
[x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : 278c3a0faeb146b042daf2f843084c08
MD5SUM upstream package : 278c3a0faeb146b042daf2f843084c08
[x] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format.
[x] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x] : MUST - Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[-] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] : MUST - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros. instead of hard-coded directory names.
[x] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Package does not generates any conflict.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contains kernel modules.
[x] : MUST - Package contains no static executables.
[x] : MUST - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x] : MUST - Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] : MUST - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] : MUST - Package installs properly.
[x] : MUST - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x] : MUST - Package is not relocatable.
[x] : MUST - Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x] : MUST - Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] : MUST - Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x] : MUST - File names are valid UTF-8.
[x] : MUST - Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x] : SHOULD - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x] : SHOULD - Dist tag is present.
[x] : SHOULD - SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x] : SHOULD - SourceX is a working URL.
[x] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define.
[-] : SHOULD - Uses parallel make.
[-] : SHOULD - The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[-] : SHOULD - If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x] : SHOULD - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x] : SHOULD - Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires).
[x] : SHOULD - Package functions as described.
[x] : SHOULD - Latest version is packaged.
[x] : SHOULD - Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] : SHOULD - Man pages included for all executables.
[-] : SHOULD - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x] : SHOULD - Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] : SHOULD - Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] : SHOULD - Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
[-] : SHOULD - %check is present and all tests pass.
[x] : SHOULD - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.

(In reply to comment #2)
Thanks a lot for this review as well!
I've changed the spec file according to your comments:
http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/octave-miscellaneous.spechttp://sailer.fedorapeople.org/octave-miscellaneous-1.0.11-2.fc15.src.rpm> 1) It would be nice to have a larger (less cryptic) description.
I've enlarged the description, hopefully it makes more sense now.
> 2) BuildRoot is no longer required in the spec files.
Removed the build root.
> 3) It is considered good style to have one BuildRequires for each package. The
> advantage of this approach is that if one of them changes it is easier to read
> using diff (or patch or...).
I use now one BR line for each requirement.
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: octave-miscellaneous
Short Description: Miscellaneous tools for octave that don't fit somewhere else
Owners: sailer
Branches: f15
InitialCC: